A nuclear power plant at Bushehr in Iran. Kenya is set to build its own station at a cost of Sh950 billion in the Athi Plains, about 50km from Nairobi, which is expected to satisfy all of Kenyas energy needs until 2040. Photo/Nation

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have been in the country for a week, on Thursday approved Kenyas application for its first nuclear power station.
The 35,000MW facility is to be built at a cost of Sh950 billion on a 200-acre plot in the Athi Plains, about 50km from Nairobi, and is expected to satisfy all of Kenyas energy needs until 2040.

The formal agreement is expected to be signed between the IAEA and the government in the next two weeks.

Already the government is in talks with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), which will supervise the construction and train technicians and other experts to run the plant.

UKAEA executive director, Prof Attaboy Fakes, flies in next week for consultations with the government committee in charge of the project, chaired by Gender Minister Esther Murugi.

Officials from the Nairobi Metropolitan ministry under which the projects falls told the Nation that the construction of the plant will start early next month and is expected to be completed by September 2012.

We are hitting the ground running, we have brought in top nuclear engineers from Europe and Asia for the construction work beginning May, said a top ministry official who declined to be named because she is not the spokesperson.

A 50km shaft will be dug into the ground at Oborimo, Urongo in Kisii Central District to store the nuclear waste.

The management of radioactive waste is one of the greatest problems of nuclear energy. It is stored until such a time in the future when the technology will exist to dispose of it.

Once complete, the nuclear power plant is expected to provide 90 per cent of the countrys electricity needs, making Kenya the worlds biggest consumer of nuclear energy ahead of France which derives 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources and the United States, which obtains only 19 per cent of its electricity from the same.

A debate has been raging globally about the safety of nuclear energy in the wake of the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan last month, destroying nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power plant and triggering radiation fears.

The inspectors are expected to certify that Kenya has adhered to all the international conventions on peaceful use of nuclear technology that it has ratified, the official said.

The Obama administration on Wednesday proposed requiring power plants using coal or fuel oil to reduce emissions of mercury and certain other hazardous pollutants by 91%, in a move that could accelerate the U.S. shift toward natural gas.

If adopted, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said, the standards would prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths a year.

The EPA says the annual cost to meet the new regulation will be about $11 billion in 2016, and that it will increase consumers' electric bills on the order of three or four dollars a month.The announcement comes as some Republicans have targeted the EPA for budget cuts, saying regulations like the one proposed on Wednesday go too far.

American Electic Power Co. and some other utilities have expressed concern they won't have time to bring their coal-fired plants into compliance on roughly half a dozen regulations expected to be proposed or adopted by the EPA over the next 20 months that target pollution.

That suggests they may ask Congress to intervene. "We do know many members of Congress are concerned about the economic impact of these rules, and more time will help mitigate the economic impact of making additional emission reductions," an AEP spokeswoman said.The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which also opposes the rules, raised another concern in a statement Wednesday: That utilities' need to comply with these and similar rules would lead to a rush of demand for new construction and smoke-stack clean-up technology, resulting in higher costs or delays for some utilities.

The nation's coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury emissions nationwide, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. They annually emit 48 tons of mercury, a toxic element that can cause neurological disorders in children, according to the GAO. The EPA declared more than a decade ago that mercury emissions from power plants pose "significant hazards to public health" and must be reduced. Some industry analysts have predicted the rule could hasten a shift from coal, source of half of the country's electricity supply, to natural gas, which is cleaner burning and accounts for 23% of the nation's electricity.

A report last September from bank Credit Suisse said the anticipated mercury rules, along with separate, previously proposed regulations targeting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, could lead to the closing of 18% of the nation's coal-fired generation capacity.

EPA officials projected a much more modest impact. The agency said Wednesday it expected plants accounting for only 2% of the nation's coal-fired capacity would be retired by 2015 in response to the new rule.

Ms. Jackson said the rule's costs would be far outweighed by the public-health benefits, which the EPA puts at between $59 billion and $140 billion in 2016, much of it from avoiding premature deaths. More than half of all coal-fired power plants already meet at least some of the proposed standards, she said.

The new standards appear likely to benefit companies that have invested in wind, solar power and nuclear energy. White House Chief of Staff William Daley met with some of those companies last week, including Constellation Energy Group Inc.

"We know from experience that constructing [pollution-control technology] can be done in a reasonable time frame," Constellation said in a statement. Some industry analysts predicted the regulation would also benefit firms that make pollution-control equipment, including Babcock & Wilcox Co. and URS Corp.

Coal, natural gas and oil collectively account for about 70% of the U.S. electricity supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, while nuclear power generates 20% and hydropower 7%. The remainder is generated by solar, wind, geothermal and biomass sources.

Under Wednesday's proposal, power plants would be obligated to meet numerical emission limits for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants within three years. But the agency said facilities could get an additional year "if technology cannot otherwise be installed in time." The EPA is expected to make a final decision in November.

Nimependekeza coal kwavile its within our rich and we have abundant of it even for few decades by then hawa wenzetu wa magharibi watakuwa na hizo renewable energy sources without radioactive wastes. Fusion is one of them wafaransa wameinvest a lot and almost getting result with the pressure now on renewable energies sources and almost the end of usefull of their nuclear reactors in many parts of the world, the solution is closer than ever. we have improvement in solour power panel up to 70% and going up. They have also improved wind power generation in some % and have portable units for some of scandinavian countries operating now. You pot one of the unit in your house and your set,you still need to be connected to tanesco sort for it to work but but can cut you dependency to tanesco up to 60%. this will mean utakuwa na hata kabalbu light and fridge on wenzio wakiendelea na mgao. So my ushauri africans to stay away from nuclear power hawa watu wanataka kutu set up kama kawaida yao. na sasa more problems the world is going under some weather changes and there gonna impose more regulations and fines on us if we take nuclear parth. Don't be fool you have passed UN standards, your peaceful bla&#8230;.bla.. bla.. Mbona hawakufikiria tungepasi hizo standards 1980's kani sisi tulikuwa magaidi.